You never had an opinion in your life. None of us did. Instead, we just "danced to our DNA," as Richard Dawkins puts it. So you don't think, anymore than a rock has to "think" to fall off a mountainside. Like it, you are merely the product of a cascade of inevitable causes. Your opinions are not actually yours: they're products of the Big Bang, or rather, of whatever caused everything that caused the Big Bang. Nothing more.

Ahem. You are denying the very aspect of ownership. According to you, my clothes are not mine, my toes are not mine, my wife is not mine.

Yet there is an inevitable sense of things belonging to me. My toe is not your toe. My clothes are not worn by anyone else.

This is the point. Ironically, you don't live at all like you are the mere product of Ramu's philosophy. You are (rightly) offended at any suggestion you are not self-possessed, don't have your own opinions, and are a mere product of a causal or fateful chain.

So why do you choose to claim to believe in theory what you clearly don't believe in practice? That would be my question.

I own THEM. That's where the buck stops.

But in chain causality, that is NOT where the buck stops. The "buck" regresses infinitely into the past (an impossibility, it's true; but that has to be the supposition). So again, I have to ask what the attraction is to believing something that is a) rationally impossible, and b) practically unliveable?

...in your opinion. That, as I said, is a matter of debate. I think it does.

But let's pretend it doesn't, and that you have reason to know it doesn't. Okay. Then every single time the Torah holds man responsible for his own choices, starting with the Garden of Eden, you have an affirmation of free will. So any way you slice it, that's in the Torah from the first book of Moses.

The fact that your words, the words, "God created man with free will" do not appear is inconsequential. You wouldn't expect God to need your words to say what He wants to say, would you?

We can't believe you. We were predetermined by fates and material causality to believe whatever we believe.

But who or what would believe that?

-1- would, apparently. At least, he says so, though I find his actions contradictory to that.

No belief..no you.

Quite true. If one is merely the product of causal chains, there's no "you," but rather just a particular collocation of atoms produced by some ancient singularity. There's no actual volition there, no actual person...merely an apparent one.

We can't believe you. We were predetermined by fates and material causality to believe whatever we believe.

But who or what would believe that?

-1- would, apparently. At least, he says so, though I find his actions contradictory to that.

The contradiction is not about the person because the person is just an idea known by no one. Action is only ever being one unitary action appearing as re-active..and that is an unavoidable contradiction, albeit illusory since a reaction doesn't have awareness.

The contradiction appears...because a belief requires a believer where there is none. However, there does appear to be a belief... because there is an awareness of the belief...but neither the belief or awareness of such can be seen to exist literally since they are just ideas floating around.

Ramu:
Any concept of humans having free will is delusional at best.

This quote is moving from belief to clarity..it's an auspicious seeing that the concept ''person'' while known cannot know or do anything. And that's what free will means, it means that the freedom to be is not owned by a ''person'' aka a concept...Free will is completely free of any identity in the same sense the wind blows which ever way it wants to blow because it's free to do so, it doesn't know it's free because the wind never informs itself it is wind.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of a ''someone'' with free will.

Intention is the rider of the will...nature doesn't intend, intention is inferred ..it's knowledge...not-knowing knowing itself.

Anything spoken or written about the nature of reality is a metaphor, not literal.

As soon as you start attributing qualities and characters to the ineffable..you are going to run into contradiction, albeit illusory.

Esoteric literature is about reading and listening to yourself only in terms of conceptual knowledge...it's about resonance with your true identity which is formless inform..in the form of information aka this immediate not-knowing knowing in contact with itself only via the word.

There is no body in the word body.

There is no person in the word person.

There is no thing in the word thing.

Words are empty of substance.

But without the word aka a ''thought'' processed as meaning and transmitted(imagined) via sound and light of awareness...there is nothing here.

You are denying the process of acquiring ownership. That is wrong. I came naked and not knowing anything; but I am no longer naked, I am knowledgable, and I own things.

If you prefer to have this broken down to the individual I person...then I can say the following information which is already known within you.

In the dream of separation, the dream of 'I' aka the ''thought'' aka ''sense'' of 'I' ...only you are having incidentally, believe it or not!
It can be understood that every 'word and thought' is believed to be real ..because I AM their only original source and source can never be negated can it?...can you deny or prove your existence right now...No, you don't need to because you just ARE without knowing how or why... This is self-evident, and cannot be refuted.
As soon as there is a demand to KNOW... a demand for knowledge...there appears here now, nowhere.. a sense of separation where there was none previously,..by remembering back to your womb aka the void days, the days of not-knowing unborn nakedness?

So for the individual sense of 'I' ... there is the sense of ownership, the sense of (this is mine) and that sense of mine/me...is what separates you from what is ultimately this immediate unknowning infinite whole undivided reality.

In the dream of separation,the TOTALITY apparently separates via the minds story and belief. In other words..''thoughts of I'' is the separation. But notice, the mind is also a part of SOURCE...albeit the dream of I.

Mind can identify with the story of I ..but never the source of I because I are both simultanously and never the twain shall meet for one very good reason...because every other apparent separate I is just a hologram of the same one light source. And there is only LIGHT...which mind gives many names to...aka concepts known.

You already know this.

.

You have some strange and mysterious concepts that seem to be unique, but perhaps your stance is shared by millions, or more.

At any rate, I believe your stance is false, and you believe your mistaken concepts more than you believe perceived reality and descriptions of that reality by language. That's your choice, and I respect that. I will have none of it, though.

Please note: What I am after is information on the specific bible quote that
a. Says that man was given free will by god or else

A bible quote is constructed of mental ideas WRITTEN down in the form of words in this conception...meaning anything written is actually unwritten...in other words, anything written or spoken can only be a metaphor, not literal.

Concepts are not literal things in and of them selves, they are metaphorical ideas (mentation) interpreted to mean whatever the interpreter interprets them to be according to (minds) own understanding. The God of one's own understanding how one interprets that.

Words are essentially meaningless, while at the same time meaning is attached to them by association, aka the creator of them...namely, you.

You are playing the role of God (relative) and at the same time (simultaneously) God is playing the role of you (Absolute)

Please note: What I am after is information on the specific bible quote that
a. Says that man was given free will by god or else
b. says something that christians interpret directly from, and use as a reference, to support they believe god gave free will to man.

So please, offer your theories and other opinions on the other thread with the same title without "Attempt 2". It should give everyone hours of free entertainment.

But I want something different.

What I would really appreciate, because this is what I want to achieve with THIS thread: a word from anyone who knows a bible quote that christians refer to as a declaration by god that he gave free will to man.

All other commentaries, please put in the other thread with the (almost) same title.

thanks, friends, compliance would be much appreciated.

Look up some 'concordance' on the book. What difference does it make if there is a direct quote or not? If you are seeking to DEFEND Christianity (as is arrogantly presumed as what 'bible' always refers to) then I'd at least understand that you want to posit some direct quote. Otherwise, what is your motive for asking? This needs to be answered if others are expected to help you on this obsession.

Where does the quote come from would be helpful to know? ..assuming it was/is a quote?

.

Can't a man have a thought to himself? What is this barrage of interrogation? Have I ever asked you "why did you say this" or "why did you ask that question"?

I am sorry, but please allow me my privacy of thought. You have no right to question or ask my motivations.

I thanked you all for your input. Thank you, I wish to discuss this no further.

I apologize for asking this of you myself but felt it necessary under the context that you seemed to expect something very specific when there was nothing NECESSARY for that when/where it is implicit in many areas of the book. Thus I recommended the concordance search. It appeared as a question intent to either force justification for whether the religions based upon the book was correct to infer free will or not.

Where does the quote come from would be helpful to know? ..assuming it was/is a quote?

.

Can't a man have a thought to himself? What is this barrage of interrogation? Have I ever asked you "why did you say this" or "why did you ask that question"?

I am sorry, but please allow me my privacy of thought. You have no right to question or ask my motivations.

I thanked you all for your input. Thank you, I wish to discuss this no further.

I apologize for asking this of you myself but felt it necessary under the context that you seemed to expect something very specific when there was nothing NECESSARY for that when/where it is implicit in many areas of the book. Thus I recommended the concordance search. It appeared as a question intent to either force justification for whether the religions based upon the book was correct to infer free will or not.